Edwin P.

I like the Galciv model where the player is presented with an event and the player has 3 choices in how to respond to event. The player's choice affects the result or it may lead to another event. For example: Minister, the Turkish Ambassador informs us that their government has recovered information from a crashed German Transport plane which we might find interesting. Do we: 1. Offer the Turkish Government 50MPP in Foreign Aid in exchange for the contents of this information. (80% Turkey's goverment graciously accepts the offer and Russia spots location of all Axis Troops in Russia for 1 Turn, 20% Russia provides money but the information is worthless.) 2. Inform the Turkish government that providing us with this information would be a sign of friendship and trust. (25% that Russia spots location of all Axis troops in Russia for 1 turn, 75% that overture is rejected.) 3. Demand that the Turkish Government turn over the information to us now or face the consequences. (60% that Russia spots all Axis troops in Russia for 1 turn, 30% Turkey rejects the threat , 10% Turkey joins the Axis) Example: Sir, the Commander of the German Army reports that the Polish civilians are suffering from a shorage of food supplies. Do we: 1) Tell the Army to distribute more rations to civilians in Poland. (Cost 20MPP) 3) Tell the Army to ignore the problem. We have more important matters to deal with. (75% nothing happens, 25% polish partisan unit created in 1 to 10 turns OR US War Readiness increases 5% as Reports of Starving Civilians run in the New York Times.) [ April 21, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

On the topic of the middle east, you can defend it if your opponent does not expect you to, based on your actions in prior games.

An issue that I had with the Strategic Bombing in SC was the range of the Bombers. In SC you could not replicate the long-range bombing campaigns of WWII. Especially as developments in Long Range gave equal increases to the Air Fleet and Bomber attack range. I might be wrong, but I always felt that Bombers should gain a three or four to one increase in attack range, not spotting range, as opposed to Air Fleets for each increase in Long Range Tech Level. Then you could duplicate those long range bombing missions that targeted cities in Germany and the oil fields of Romania. [ April 20, 2004, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Interesting, give me an hour to ponder the implications.

I second your vote and can't wait for SC2. As for tiles vs hexes, I can't answer that until I play the demo but I don't think that it will make a serious difference, it might even make the game better. Yes, better. But so far from everything I see it promises to offer players a much more satisfying game with lots more decisions and trade-offs to make, an improved FOW, a better AI, an improved look and several ways to win within the same keeping the simple easy to learn system that made SC so good. And that's not including the features offered by the vastly improved editor. HC's and the playtesters are doing a good job. [ April 20, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC2 the African coast extends farther south according to the screen shots.

If the RN has a solid wall up north then who is watching the Atlantic for subs launched from France? and that also means that the RN has no ships guarding the Middle East.

Excellent point. But he always seemed to pick on smaller countries when possible and Syria is in Turkey's back yard where Turkey had much shorter lines of supply. Of course, if the Italians took Egypt this would change.

True, but given the Italian performance during the North African Campaign and against the Greeks I doubt that they would have want to take on the Turks.

In SC I did not notice the Nile River to the West of Cairo. Will the Nile be included in SC2 or is the Nile considered a minor barrier, being at most 24ft deep during the flood season and and average of 2.8km wide in the region of Aswan to Cairo, when compared to the other major rivers shown in Europe? [ April 20, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

What about the Battle for Stalingrad.

I just feel that Turkey might decide to take advantage of England's and France's misfortune to right some of the wrongs it suffered 25 years earlier at the hands of the English and Lawrence of Arabia. Besides, not even the Germans would want Syria - its 80% desert - and it has no oil. PS: It also changes the map and makes it harder for the Axis to take Iraq, thus slightly helping the Allied player (it would really help the allies if the Turks also annexed Iraq). [ April 20, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Great, Great, Great Do you know if we will able to write user selectable political triggers? Example - At Start of Game Axis player can select to subsitute Spain or Turkey for Italian entry. Example - Turkey's ambassador has informed the Prime Minister that a gift of 20MPPs would negate domestic opinion to join the Axis. If UK does not give 20MPP to Turkey then Turkey will be more inclined to join the Axis. Historically Turkey played off the Axis and the Allies against each other securing financial and military aid from both nations while remaining neutral until the Germans were perceived to be losing. Example: 25% IF Axis attacks Sweden then Spain asks the UK for 50MPP in Military Supplies. If UK gives 50 MPP Neutral Spain gains an extra Corps or two. Example - Random political triggers such as - If Germany DOW Vichy France then Turkey has a 10% to annex Vichy Syria ( a former territory of the Ottoman Empire). If Axis conquers Egypt then Turkey is 20% likely to Annex Iraq. If Axis attacks Turkey then Iran is 25% likely to join Allies. Example: - 20% If Germans take Rostov then Turkey offers Russia MPP in exchange for the City of XXXX and the surrounding oil fields, promised to Turkey in an earlier Treaty. If Russia accepts Russia gains 400MPP but Turkey Annexes Tiles XX,XX,XX,XX and XX. (Turkish politicians offers the Russians a deal they can't refuse). [ April 20, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

The German army would really be tied down if the chance for Russian Partisans increased based on the number of city tiles the the partisans controlled. For example: 1 City = +10% (+15 = 25% total) 2 Cities = +25% (+15 = 40% total) 3 Cities = +45% (+15 = 60% total) 4 cities = +70% (+15 = 85% total) If the ratio exceeds 100% then the partisan unit recruits one unit and has a chance to recruit a second unit (120% = 100% for the first unit plus 20% for a second unit that turn). I suggest this modification as I believe that the more cities a partisan group controls the easier it is to recruit more more civilians to fight. It will also give the occupying power a strong incentive not to allow partisans continued contol of any city hex.

Proposed suggestions for the after effects of a successful German sea lion invasion of the UK. 1. Canada becomes a US Minor Ally 2. UK Fleets in US or Canadian Controlled Ports become Free British Fleets. 3. UK Air or Land Units in the US or Canada become Free Brits 4. Canadian units do not disband. 5. Egypt becomes an independent nation. 6. Spain annexes an unoccupied Gibraltar and passage is open to all. 7. Free French Units survive as they fear the consequences of being caught by the Germans. If caught in Egypt they board transports for the South Atlantic. 8. Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran may sign a mutual defense treaty to guard their independence against another Colonial European power (10%, 1 in 10 games where a successful Sea Lion has occurred). A DOW against any one of them is a DOW against all of them. Announced via a pop-up window. 9. Turkey annexes Vichy Syria (50%) and reclaims some of the territory it lost in the aftermath of WWI. 10. Turkey annexes Neutral Iraq and Neutral Syria (4% - 1 in 25 games where England has surrendered). [ April 20, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree, I have to attend a meeting in the morning at 8. But I wonder, if SC2 will include Diplomats that can be selected at the start of the game. One Diplomat might give a Bonus in one type of situation and another a penalty in another type. So in this game I pick Herr XXXX as my Foreign Minister expecting to negotiate a deal with Spain but instead I am forced to send him to Turkey, and he hates the Turks and so my dealings with Turkey suffer a penalty. I could see the Axis, Russians, Americans, and Brits having a choice of four ministers each. Each one with their own strengths, weaknesses and secret agendas. Thus diplomacy is affected by the choices you make, by the foreign minister you have selected and your opponent's choices and the foreign minister that they have selected to use. Naturally the secreat agendas should be randomly assigned each game and become known only during the course of play. Germany - Ribbentrop, UK - US - Sumner Wells (+10% European Negotiations), Edward Reilly Stettinius, Jr, Louis Dreyfus (+10% in Middle Eastern Negotiations) USSR - [ April 20, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree that they would be more likely to join the Axis, except if they saw that even pro-axis nations such as Spain and Sweden were attacked by the Axis. As you said earlier Germany's representative to Spain sabotaged all negotiations. What the same thing happened with Turkey? [ April 20, 2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In my view the the Middle Eastern countries might be willing to join the Allies if the UK has surrendered only if they thought that Germany's conquests would not stop. Thus the chance of convincing them to join the allies should be dependent upon how many Pro-Axis Neutral Countries the Axis has attacked - ie Vichy France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Egypt. If the Axis has attacked all of them then I would like to see the Diplomatic system allow for Turkey, Iraq and Iran to join the Allies as American Minor Allies - as the Turks and Iranians did not like or trust the Russians. Say that Axis has attacked one of these nations then 0% for middle Eastern countries to join the allies if the UK has surrendered. If the Axis has attacked all of these Nations then a 50% for the Middle Eastern countries to ally with the Americans if they exert diplomatic pressure and the UK has surrendered. [ April 20, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

The problem was that the Government of Egypt and England argued over who should control the Sudan. Egypt loss and when the UK used the assination of their official as an excuse to force the Egyptians to remove their army from the Sudan. The English then replaced it with a Sudanese force of 4,500 troops commanded by British officers. ------------------------ As for the list of countries you listed they are not represented in the SC2 editor; however, you can create your own countries in SC2. ----------------------------------- More importantly, I am interested in how the Event Editor and Diplomatic system will work as I think that we could create a most interesting and varied set of possibilities for the Middle East in the event of a successful Axis Sea Lion. With the US using its influence to sway the alligence of the Middle Eastern countries whose leaders might be uncomfortable with an Axis power that has attacked every country in Western Europe - Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden. [ April 20, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn I agree and to elaborate: What might happan to Egypt after the UK surrenders? A. Commonwealth Continues to Fight On, from Canada, and the overseas territories. As the US has entered the war by now would they simply become US terroritories until the UK is liberated? or does the US promise them independence in order to secure their support? At the least Canada should become a US Ally. UK warships become free Brits? Overseas UK troops become free Brits? If Egypt joins the US as a Minor Allied Nation it should not revert back to UK control if the UK is liberate. B. Egypt Goes Neutral 1. Axis Attacks Neutral Egypt ---- Perhaps Turkey decides to annex Syria and Iraq before the Axis troops can. ---- Perhaps the other nations of the region (Turkey, Iraq, Iran) panic and join the Allies ---- Perhaps the other nations in the area are too afraid to do anything. 2. Perhaps the Muslim nations (Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran) enter into a joint defense agreement. If one is attacked then that will be considered an attack against all. Of course what is signed on paper might not be followed by actions. Perhaps this is an area for diplomatic action? It would make the Middle East a very interesting area and provide an opportunity for an Allied comeback from a successful Sea Lion, if they could convince the countries of the Middle East to join the Allies. [ April 20, 2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Historically at that point in time the Egyptian Army was rather small, I will try to find the acutual numbers, and ill equipped as the British Government did not trust them and Egyptian government officials and military officers embezzeled money meant for the army. To a large degree this also explains why the Egyptians lost the 1948 war against Israel. Esentially their army = poor equipment + poor training + corrupt officers. I did find the following: It appears that Egypt had a sizable number of troops in the Sudan at that point in time. [ April 20, 2004, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I believe that this might be why HC listed Iceland as a seperate country, and it should be noted that at the time Iceland only had a local police force to enforce law and order for its very small population. Additionaly, the UK did not wait to be invited into Iceland after Denmark surrendered to the Axis it merely invaded the island and the Icelandic government accepted it after the fact. I agree as I feel that the Egyptian government and populace would have responded to this event by celebrating their independence of British influence and being willing to resist, to a limited degree, any new European overseer. The key in Egypt's case is how would the Axis have handled an independent Egypt, with respect or with disdain? With respect and no forces need be diverted to garrison Egypt. With disdain and sizable numbers of troops might be needed to pacify the region, troops that could be better used on the Russian front. With disdain and perhaps the other Arab nations such as Iraq, Iran and Turkey might join the Allies if they felt they had no other option and they were promised aid from America and Russia. What might happan to a Neutral Egypt after the UK surrenders? 1. Axis Attacks Neutral Egypt ---- Perhaps Turkey decides to annex Syria and Iraq before the Axis troops can. ---- Perhaps the other nations of the region (Turkey, Iraq, Iran) panic and join the Allies ---- Perhaps the other nations in the area are too afraid to do anything. 2. Perhaps the Muslim nations (Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran) enter into a joint defense agreement. If one is attacked then that will be considered an attack against all. Of course what is signed on paper might not be followed by actions. Perhaps this is an area for diplomatic action? It would make the Middle East a very interesting area and provide an opportunity for an Allied comeback from a successful Sea Lion, if they could convince the countries of the Middle East to join the Allies. [ April 20, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

With the vastly improved graphics will the game show portraits of the important HQ Generals in the unit information part of the screen when you select a HQ unit? Or if not will it allow players to add their own portraits to a protrait data folder? - ie balbo.jpg, patton.jpg For example: Italo Balbo For example: Patton To me it just seems that you get more involved in a game if you could see photos of the leaders and the major warships of the period. HMS Hood [ April 19, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

The SC2 page mentions the Malta Effect. What is this?

Not only supplying it but also holding it against a determined invasion. The good news is that the seas around Iceland are so rough during the winter and the winters so brutal and beaches so rugged (if any country has a lack of good invasion landing areas in Europe its Iceland and Norway, compared to them the coast of France is a cakewalk) that any invasion would be most troublesome if the defender has had time to prepare, once the British occuppied the isles any chance of a German invasion became much more difficult. [ April 19, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]